When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions 2015-Aug-18
The scientists who get credit for peer review 2014-Oct-09
Journals weigh up double-blind peer review 2014-Jul-15
Peer reviewers urged to speak their minds 2013-Dec-04
Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing 2013-Mar-27
Related external links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ferguson, C., Marcus, A. & Oransky, I. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature 515, 480–482 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
How many authors are (too) many? A retrospective, descriptive analysis of authorship in biomedical publications
Scientometrics (2024)
-
Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics
International Orthopaedics (2023)
-
Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology (2022)
-
Taiwanese Researchers’ Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study
Science and Engineering Ethics (2020)
-
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
Research Integrity and Peer Review (2020)